Ontario (Ministry of Community and social services) v. Grievance Settlement Board
Religious Accommodation: Grievance Settlement Board Review
Summary
This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Divisional Court decision reviewing a Grievance Settlement Board award about religious accommodation. The parties were the provincial employer and the union representing an employee who requested eleven paid days off for religious observance. The board and the court below ruled that the employer's policy of offering compressed work week days instead of paid leave was discriminatory, and ordered the employer to pay for the days off. The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal and set aside the board's award. The Court decided that the employer fully met its duty to accommodate by allowing the employee to bank compressed work week scheduling days, which provided time off without forcing the employee to lose wages or use earned vacation time.
Outcome
appeal allowed
Key Factors
- religious accommodation
- duty to accommodate
- undue hardship
- discrimination
- standard of review
Related Cases
M. v. Direct Coil Inc.
2026 ONSC 5369 (CanLII) · 2026-09-28HRTO Judicial Review: Accommodation & WSIB
This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision where the Tribunal had dismissed an application on a preliminary basis. The Divisional Court quashed the dismissal decision, finding the Tribunal unreasonably relied on a WSIB decision that did not address accommodation issues, thereby allowing the human rights application to proceed.
K. v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal)
2026 ONCA 653 (CanLII) · 2026-09-17K. v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal): Leave to Appeal
This was a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a Divisional Court decision dismissing an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision. The applicant, a forest firefighter, alleged discrimination because his employer did not provide vegan meals, arguing ethical veganism is a creed. The parties settled the claim while a preliminary hearing on the definition of creed was pending, but the Tribunal adjudicator, unaware of the settlement, ruled ethical veganism was not a creed. The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's judicial review as moot due to the settlement. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, holding the discretionary refusal to hear a moot case did not raise an arguable question of public importance.
S. v. Toronto Transit Commission
2026 ONSC 4170 (CanLII) · 2026-07-29Human Rights: Mask Policy & Disability Accommodation
This case involves a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability where the plaintiff claimed a migraine disorder required accommodation from a mandatory mask policy. The court found that no prima facie discrimination was established because the link between the migraine and mask intolerance was not proven, resulting in no duty to accommodate. Additionally, the plaintiff's constructive dismissal claim was dismissed as the refusal to comply with the essential masking term constituted repudiation by the employee, though the court awarded one week of sick leave for a promised coded sick week.
G. v. Unity Health Toronto et al.
2026 ONSC 3778 (CanLII) · 2026-06-29HRTO Judicial Review: Procedural Fairness and Jurisdiction
The Divisional Court reviewed an application for judicial review of an HRTO decision that screened out a complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court found the HRTO's determination that the allegations lacked a nexus to a Code protected ground was reasonable and that the tribunal's use of a written determination without an oral hearing did not deny procedural fairness.
B. v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al.
2026 ONSC 3624 (CanLII) · 2026-06-29Judicial Review: Human Rights Tribunal Employment Decision
This is a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision regarding employment-related human rights complaints. The Divisional Court reviewed allegations of sex discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal in the context of the applicant's termination during a probationary period. The Court applied the Vavilov standard of reasonableness to the Tribunal's findings that the employer had valid, non-discriminatory reasons for termination and that the workplace environment allegations were unsubstantiated.
More Ontario employment decisions from 2000
This summary was written by AI from the published decision and its headnote. It is not an official version of the decision; read the full text on CanLII before relying on it. This is legal information, not legal advice. Ontario Severance is an educational tool. If you are facing a serious employment law matter, consult with a qualified employment lawyer in Ontario.